Posted on 10/18/2020 6:03:21 PM PDT by TigerClaws
On 10/2, the deposition testimony of highly respected, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh was filed in federal court.
———
· ·MR. BOWMAN:· And please state his 15· · · · answer. 16· · · · · · ·MR. QUAINTON:· Would you read back 17· · · · the question that we had before? 18· · · · (The reporter read from the record as 19· · · · follows:· "It's true that you had a 20· · · · trusted source whom you had known for 31 21· · · · years who communicated information to you 22· · · · about the FBI examining Seth Rich's 23· · · · computer, finding emails from Seth Rich to 24· · · · WikiLeaks, and requesting payment in 25· · · · exchange.· That is a true statement, is it Page 198 TSG Reporting - Worldwide· YVer1f
Case 1:18-cv-00681-RJL Document 268-3 Filed 10/02/20 Page 6 of 6
·1· · · · · · · ·HERSH - CONFIDENTIAL ·2· · · · not?") ·3· · · · · · ·MS. GOVERNSKI:· Objection to that ·4· · · · question as well as to the -- Mr. ·5· · · · Quainton's intro into it. ·6· · · · A.· ·My -- my answer is it's absolutely ·7· ·true.· I had a source who communicated ·8· ·secondhand information to me about the issues ·9· ·you raise. 10· ·BY MR. QUAINTON: 11· · · · Q.· ·Going to move to strike everything 12· ·after the words "It's absolutely true." 13· · · · · · ·So when you say "doesn't mean 14· ·true," does -- is what you mean by that 15· ·you could not verify the -- the content 16· ·was communicated to you by your trusted 17· · · · A.· ·No, it does not mean that to me. 18· · · · · · ·MS. GOVERNSKI:· Objection. 19· · · · Q.· ·Well, what -- what does it mean to 20· ·you, then? 21· · · · A.· ·I made no attempt to verify. I 22· ·didn't consider it something worth verifying. 23· · · · Q.· ·So what doesn't make it true, though, 24· ·is the fact that it has not been verified. 25· · · · · · ·MS. GOVERNSKI:· Objection. it's that of what source? Page 199 TSG Reporting - Worldwide·
Philip Haney. DHS whistleblower.
Relating pleading where the defendant (sued for defamation by the Seth Rich family) asks the reporter to reveal which FBI agent he talked to about the Rich murder:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.194794/gov.uscourts.dcd.194794.268.0.pdf
Nothing we haven’t already known for years.
Hersh was unknowingly recorded saying this in a private conversation a few years ago; it’s significant that he’s now said it in court filings. He’s writing a book on this, which should be interesting.
Also, Hersh said John Brennan and Michael Rogers ran the attempt to frame Trump.
This is another distraction.
The key is to stay focused on what wins. ALL of the stuff falling out right now is diluting the key: Prove Biden is corrupt. We are a country founded on the basis that the sins of the father don’t fall on the sons. Well, it works backwards as well.
Proving Hunter is a degenerate is fine, but it appears all we are doing is taking away the black mail opportunity. Nothing says, “Joe is corrupt.” It says Hunter is.
Or you could go to the link, do a "find" search for Seth Rich, and see where he is mentioned 5 times.
Ping.
He said he didn’t try to verify it because it wasn’t worth verifying.
Could you read what you post before you post it, please?
.
Seymour Hersch came to some conclusion in 2017, this mirrors what he concluded then.
Very few sources are in format that can be extracted.
I know, this is not a good source.
It is understandable.
Why is it that, on balance, Freeper nation is right on, and the MSM universe gets it so very wrong?
It wasn't Crowdstrike but some other computer forensic analyst who found markers in the Wikileaks-posted files that indicated that the information was downloaded from the source onto a USB drive (= onsite download) and not extracted by remote means (i.e. not by hacking). I don't know how credible the analyst is.
It is a copy-and-paste group of words that are the sworn testimony of the witness. In “court speak” they put line numbers by the testimony sentences - those are numbers you see stuck in the sentences.
An enemy lawyer, or an enemy representative or senator or committee chairmen who is listening to the deposition, is interrupting the speaker and deleting specific phrases and words. (Striking from the revord). This manipulates the record, and lets somebody else lie. “It depends on your definition of “is” is type of lie.
Joe apparently required Hunter to fork over half of his ill-gotten income to his father. Joe clearly was aware of Hunter's business arrangements and lied about it. Joe and Jill have been shielding their real income via a couple of shell companies that pay them a salary. Plenty of smoke here that we know of so far.
EVERYONE knows that Seth Rich was the source, and that he was murdered by the deep state because of it.
I liked his “The Dark Side of Camelot” for the takedown of JFK for corruption and dishonesty.
Boomer back atcha.... OU alum from 76 & 79.
The gibberish is the defense lawyer trying to obscure what is a very straight forward answer by confusing the court and blocking any intelligent understanding of what is being stated.
Here’s the translation: Hersh admits freely that it was “true” he was told by his source that Seth Rich offered documents to WikiLeaks in exchange for a monetary consideration but he tries to obfuscate his answer by conflating this with his statement that he doesn’t know if what he was told was “true” because he didn’t bother to verify it (independently). This is known philosophically as pure semantic sophistry which is what much of this questioning involves but it doesn’t change the fact that he was told that Seth Rich was involved with WikiLeaks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.